[Pants-of-dog]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpilleras

Arpilleras are brightly colored patchwork pictures made by groups of women (also known as arpilleristas) in Chile during the military dictatorship (1973–90) of Augusto Pinochet. Constructed from simple materials such as burlap and scraps of cloth, they typically depict scenes of hardship and violence that many women experienced during the dictatorship due to impoverished living conditions and government repression. Arpilleras were made in workshops organized by a committee of the Chilean Catholic Church and then secretly distributed abroad through the church's human rights group, the Vicariate of Solidarity. The production of arpilleras provided a vital source of income for the arpilleristas, many of whom had been left in a state of financial insecurity due to widespread unemployment and forced disappearances of their husbands and children, who became known as desaparecidos. Arpilleras often depicted expressly political themes and openly denounced the human rights violations of the Pinochet regime, and are currently recognized as an example of subversive women's art in an authoritarian political context.

[johndogooder91]

@Hong Wu,
I totally share the conception of art of the OP.
The most powerful art for me, i.e. the activity that gives me a strongest and more powerful sense of beuty and honest admiration, is nothing else that contemplating nature.
Except rare exceptions like some pieces of classical music of past eras, I don't care for most of art. It doesn't awake in me any really meaningful sensation.

I guess it's because I don't believe in the message that those artists want to convey (although I do not rationalise this at all).
Nor do I see it as inherently awe-inspiring.

On the other hand, after watching documentaries of The Amur Tiger, I truly feel elevated.
All my friends think I'm weird for this

I also think that Nature itself is the most reactonary, pure and apolitical artist.
Contemplating nature is one of the few entertainment activities in The West that is not tainted with the stink of subversion and degeneracy.

[Hong Wu]

@Hong Wu,
I totally share the conception of art of the OP.
The most powerful art for me, i.e. the activity that gives me a strongest and more powerful sense of beuty and honest admiration, is nothing else that contemplating nature.
Except rare exceptions like some pieces of classical music of past eras, I don't care for most of art. It doesn't awake in me any really meaningful sensation.

I guess it's because I don't believe in the message that those artists want to convey (although I do not rationalise this at all).
Nor do I see it as inherently awe-inspiring.

On the other hand, after watching documentaries of The Amur Tiger, I truly feel elevated.
All my friends think I'm weird for this

I also think that Nature itself is the most reactonary, pure and apolitical artist.
Contemplating nature is one of the few entertainment activities in The West that is not tainted with the stink of subversion and degeneracy.

Thank you, glad to hear it I think I'll reiterate that people who want art to be a weapon are being cowardly. Insofar as it's a weapon, it might be to try and get other people to fight. Trying to get other people to fight instead of fighting yourself, I just don't respect that if it's done in a manipulative way, which is what art that vilifies people does. If you have an argument of some kind re: why people should fight then that's one thing, if you are trying to get them to fight through your art then you don't really have an argument, you're just sort of jeering at them. Sad!

I agree with you (f this is what you're saying) that art is about bringing out something that we already have inside of us. If modern art doesn't move you, perhaps it is because you lack some modern sensibilities which I think is fine.

Regarding nature, it certainly can be artistic and one might even argue that it is at the root of inspiration for all art. I suppose in a way though, everything comes from nature, including the things we people make in a sense.

[johndogooder91]

Yeah, and I'd also argue that the images given by Nature have a special flavour of eternity and static-ness.

'Socially conscious art' usually tries to pave the way for an Overton window.
It tries to influence people in a self-interested way.
It takes advantage of the weakness of human minds in order to move human thoughts and imagination towards the desired direction.

Art directly based on nature, on the contraty, is about the beauty of eternity, of something greater than us tiny humans.
It has no particular message. This art doesn't try to control our thoughts, but liberates our minds from all the noise of everyday life.

I also think that appreciating nature is a way to find in ourselves the inherent tolerance towards the different that humans have.
But it does so without forced, artificially engineered messages.